Trans-disciplinary advanced allied health practitioners for acute hospital inpatients: a feasibility study.

OBJECTIVE: To explore cost-efficiency, safety and acceptability of trans-disciplinary advanced allied health (AH) practitioners for acute adult general medicine inpatients. DESIGN: Quasi-experimental feasibility study. SETTING: Three acute general medical units in an Australian urban hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred and fifty-six acute hospital inpatients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost-efficiency measures included AH service utilization and length of stay (LOS). Patient outcomes were functional independence, discharge destination, adverse events, unplanned admissions within 28 days, patient satisfaction and quality of life data on admission, and 30 days post-discharge. Ward staff were surveyed regarding satisfaction with the service model, and advanced health practitioners (AHPs) rated their confidence in their own ability to meet the performance standards of the role. RESULTS: Patients allocated to AHPs (n = 172) received 0.91 less hours of AH intervention (adjusted for LOS) (95% confidence intervals (CI): -1.68 to -0.14; P = 0.02) and had 1.76 days shorter LOS relative to expected (95%CI: 0.18-3.34; P = 0.03) compared with patients receiving standard AH (n = 84). There were no differences in patient outcomes or satisfaction. AHPs demonstrated growth in job satisfaction and skill confidence. CONCLUSIONS: Trans-disciplinary advanced AH roles may be feasible and cost-efficient compared with traditional roles for acute general medical inpatients. Further development of competency frameworks is recommended.

What Factors Do Allied Health Take Into Account When Making Resource Allocation Decisions?

BACKGROUND: Allied health comprises multiple professional groups including dietetics, medical radiation practitioners, occupational therapists, optometrists and psychologists. Different to medical and nursing, Allied health are often organized in discipline specific departments and allocate budgets within these to provide services to a range of clinical areas. Little is known of how managers of allied health go about allocating these resources, the factors they consider when making these decisions, and the sources of information they rely upon. The purpose of this study was to identify the key factors that allied health consider when making resource allocation decisions and the sources of information they are based upon. METHODS: Four forums were conducted each consisting of case studies, a large group discussion and two hypothetical scenarios to elicit data. A thematic content analysis commenced during post-forum discussions of key factors by forum facilitators. These factors were then presented to an expert working party for further discussion and refinement. Transcripts were generated of all data recordings and a detailed thematic analysis was undertaken by one author to ensure coded data matched the initial thematic analysis. RESULTS: Twelve factors affecting the decision-making of allied health managers and clinicians were identified. One of these factors was disendorsed by the expert working party. The 11 remaining factors can be considered to be key decision-making principles that should be consistently applied to resource allocation. These principles were clustered into three overarching themes of readiness, impact and appropriateness. CONCLUSION: Understanding these principles now means further research can be completed to more effectively integrate research evidence into health policy and service delivery, create partnerships among policy-makers, managers, service providers and researchers, and to provide support to answer difficult questions that policy-makers, managers and service providers face.

Implementation of evidence-based weekend service recommendations for allied health managers: a cluster randomised controlled trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: It is widely acknowledged that health policy and practice do not always reflect current research evidence. Whether knowledge transfer from research to practice is more successful when specific implementation approaches are used remains unclear. A model to assist engagement of allied health managers and clinicians with research implementation could involve disseminating evidence-based policy recommendations, along with the use of knowledge brokers. We developed such a model to aid decision-making for the provision of weekend allied health services. This protocol outlines the design and methods for a multi-centre cluster randomised controlled trial to evaluate the success of research implementation strategies to promote evidence-informed weekend allied health resource allocation decisions, especially in hospital managers. METHODS: This multi-centre study will be a three-group parallel cluster randomised controlled trial. Allied health managers from Australian and New Zealand hospitals will be randomised to receive either (1) an evidence-based policy recommendation document to guide weekend allied health resource allocation decisions, (2) the same policy recommendation document with support from a knowledge broker to help implement weekend allied health policy recommendations, or (3) a usual practice control group. The primary outcome will be alignment of weekend allied health service provision with policy recommendations. This will be measured by the number of allied health service events (occasions of service) occurring on weekends as a proportion of total allied health service events for the relevant hospital wards at baseline and 12-month follow-up. DISCUSSION: Evidence-based policy recommendation documents communicate key research findings in an accessible format. This comparatively low-cost research implementation strategy could be combined with using a knowledge broker to work collaboratively with decision-makers to promote knowledge transfer. The results will assist managers to make decisions on resource allocation, based on evidence. More generally, the findings will inform the development of an allied health model for translating research into practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) ( ACTRN12618000029291 ). Universal Trial Number (UTN): U1111-1205-2621.

Frameworks for embedding a research culture in allied health practice: a rapid review.

BACKGROUND: Although allied health clinicians play a key role in the provision of healthcare, embedding a culture of research within public and private health systems remains a challenge. In this rapid review we critically evaluate frameworks for embedding research into routine allied health practice, as the basis for high quality, safe, efficient and consumer-focused care. METHODS: A rapid review (PROSPERO: CRD42017075699) was conducted to evaluate frameworks designed to create and embed research in the health sector. Included were full-text, English-language, peer-reviewed publications or Government reports of frameworks that could inform the implementation of an allied health research framework. Eight electronic databases and four government websites were searched, using search terms such as models, frameworks and research capacity-building. Two independent researchers conducted all review stages and used content and thematic analysis to interpret the results. RESULTS: Sixteen framework papers were finally included. Content analysis identified 44 system and regulatory level items that informed the research frameworks, 125 healthcare organisation items and 76 items relating to individual clinicians. Thematic analysis identified four major themes. Firstly, sustainable change requires allied health research policies, regulation, governance and organisational structures that support and value evidence-based practice. Secondly, research capability, receptivity, advocacy and literacy of healthcare leaders and managers are key to successful research implementation. Third, organisational factors that facilitate a research culture include dedicated staff research positions, time allocated to research, mentoring, professional education and research infrastructure. When healthcare agencies had strong partnerships with universities and co-located research leaders, research implementation was strengthened. Finally, individual attributes of clinicians, such as their research skills and capabilities, motivation, and participation in research teams, are essential to embedding research into practice. CONCLUSION: Theoretical frameworks were identified that informed processes to embed a culture of allied health research into healthcare services. Research-led and evidence-informed allied health practice enables optimisation of workforce capability and high-quality care.

How Do Allied Health Professionals Define and Apply Equity When Making Resource Allocation Decisions?

An ethnographic study was conducted in 2 stages to understand how allied health professionals define and apply equity when making resource allocation decisions. Participants were allied health managers and clinicians from Victoria, Australia. Stage 1 included 4 semi-structured forums that incorporated real-life case studies, group discussions, and hypothetical scenarios. The project's steering committee began a thematic analysis during post-forum discussions. Stage 2 included a key stakeholder working party that further discussed the concept of equity. The forum recordings were transcribed verbatim, and a detailed thematic analysis ensured the initial thematic analysis was complete. Several domains of equity were discussed. Participants would readily identify that equity was a consideration when making resource decisions but were generally silent for a prolonged period when prompted to identify what they meant when using this term. The findings indicate that asking allied health professionals to directly state how they define and apply equity to their decision-making could be too difficult a task, as this did not elicit rich and meaningful discussions. Future research should examine individual domains of equity when applied to resource allocation decisions.

A Model of Care for Osteoarthritis of the Hip and Knee: Development of a System-Wide Plan for the Health Sector in Victoria, Australia.

Osteoarthritis (OA) imposes a significant burden to the person, the health system and the community. Models of Care (MoCs) drive translation of evidence into policy and practice and provide a platform for health system reform. The Victorian MoC for OA of the hip and knee was developed following a best-practice framework, informed by best-evidence and iterative cross-sector consultation, including direct consumer consultation. Governance and external expert advisory committees consisting of local OA care champions facilitated the development and consultation processes. The MoC outlines key components of care, care that is not recommended, and suggests phased implementation strategies. This paper describes the MoC development process and lessons learned.

Exploration of an allied health workforce redesign model: quantifying the work of allied health assistants in a community workforce.

The Victorian Assistant Workforce Model (VAWM) enables a systematic approach for the identification and quantification of work that can be delegated from allied health professionals (AHPs) to allied health assistants (AHAs). The aim of the present study was to explore the effect of implementation of VAWM in the community and ambulatory health care setting. Data captured using mixed methods from allied health professionals working across the participating health services enabled the measurement of opportunity for workforce redesign in the community and ambulatory allied health workforce. A total of 1112 AHPs and 135 AHAs from the 27 participating organisations took part in the present study. AHPs identified that 24% of their time was spent undertaking tasks that could safely be delegated to an appropriately qualified and supervised AHA. This equates to 6837h that could be redirected to advanced and expanded AHP practice roles or expanded patient-centred service models. The VAWM demonstrates potential for more efficient implementation of assistant workforce roles across allied health. Data outputs from implementation of the VAWM are vital in informing strategic planning and sustainability of workforce change. A more efficient and effective workforce promotes service delivery by the right person, in the right place, at the right time.

Impact of disinvestment from weekend allied health services across acute medical and surgical wards: 2 stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Disinvestment (removal, reduction, or reallocation) of routinely provided health services can be difficult when there is little published evidence examining whether the services are effective or not. Evidence is required to understand if removing these services produces outcomes that are inferior to keeping such services in place. However, organisational imperatives, such as budget cuts, may force healthcare providers to disinvest from these services before the required evidence becomes available. There are presently no experimental studies examining the effectiveness of allied health services (e.g., physical therapy, occupational therapy, and social work) provided on weekends across acute medical and surgical hospital wards, despite these services being routinely provided internationally. The aim of this study was to understand the impact of removing weekend allied health services from acute medical and surgical wards using a disinvestment-specific non-inferiority research design. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted 2 stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trials between 1 February 2014 and 30 April 2015 among patients on 12 acute medical or surgical hospital wards spread across 2 hospitals. The hospitals involved were 2 metropolitan teaching hospitals in Melbourne, Australia. Data from n = 14,834 patients were collected for inclusion in Trial 1, and n = 12,674 in Trial 2. Trial 1 was a disinvestment-specific non-inferiority stepped-wedge trial where the 'current' weekend allied health service was incrementally removed from participating wards each calendar month, in a random order, while Trial 2 used a conventional non-inferiority stepped-wedge design, where a 'newly developed' service was incrementally reinstated on the same wards as in Trial 1. Primary outcome measures were patient length of stay (proportion staying longer than expected and mean length of stay), the proportion of patients experiencing any adverse event, and the proportion with an unplanned readmission within 28 days of discharge. The 'no weekend allied health service' condition was considered to be not inferior if the 95% CIs of the differences between this condition and the condition with weekend allied health service delivery were below a 2% increase in the proportion of patients who stayed in hospital longer than expected, a 2% increase in the proportion who had an unplanned readmission within 28 days, a 2% increase in the proportion who had any adverse event, and a 1-day increase in the mean length of stay. The current weekend allied health service included physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy, dietetics, social work, and allied health assistant services in line with usual care at the participating sites. The newly developed weekend allied health service allowed managers at each site to reprioritise tasks being performed and the balance of hours provided by each professional group and on which days they were provided. Analyses conducted on an intention-to-treat basis demonstrated that there was no estimated effect size difference between groups in the proportion of patients staying longer than expected (weekend versus no weekend; estimated effect size difference [95% CI], p-value) in Trial 1 (0.40 versus 0.38; estimated effect size difference 0.01 [-0.01 to 0.04], p = 0.31, CI was both above and below non-inferiority margin), but the proportion staying longer than expected was greater with the newly developed service compared to its no weekend service control condition (0.39 versus 0.40; estimated effect size difference 0.02 [0.01 to 0.04], p = 0.04, CI was completely below non-inferiority margin) in Trial 2. Trial 1 and 2 findings were discordant for the mean length of stay outcome (Trial 1: 5.5 versus 6.3 days; estimated effect size difference 1.3 days [0.9 to 1.8], p < 0.001, CI was both above and below non-inferiority margin; Trial 2: 5.9 versus 5.0 days; estimated effect size difference -1.6 days [-2.0 to -1.1], p < 0.001, CI was completely below non-inferiority margin). There was no difference between conditions for the proportion who had an unplanned readmission within 28 days in either trial (Trial 1: 0.01 [-0.01 to 0.03], p = 0.18, CI was both above and below non-inferiority margin; Trial 2: -0.01 [-0.02 to 0.01], p = 0.62, CI completely below non-inferiority margin). There was no difference between conditions in the proportion of patients who experienced any adverse event in Trial 1 (0.01 [-0.01 to 0.03], p = 0.33, CI was both above and below non-inferiority margin), but a lower proportion of patients had an adverse event in Trial 2 when exposed to the no weekend allied health condition (-0.03 [-0.05 to -0.004], p = 0.02, CI completely below non-inferiority margin). Limitations of this research were that 1 of the trial wards was closed by the healthcare provider after Trial 1 and could not be included in Trial 2, and that both withdrawing the current weekend allied health service model and installing a new one may have led to an accommodation period for staff to adapt to the new service settings. Stepped-wedge trials are potentially susceptible to bias from naturally occurring change over time at the service level; however, this was adjusted for in our analyses. CONCLUSIONS: In Trial 1, criteria to say that the no weekend allied health condition was non-inferior to current weekend allied health condition were not met, while neither the no weekend nor current weekend allied health condition demonstrated superiority. In Trial 2, the no weekend allied health condition was non-inferior to the newly developed weekend allied health condition across all primary outcomes, and superior for the outcomes proportion of patients staying longer than expected, proportion experiencing any adverse event, and mean length of stay. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12613001231730 and ACTRN12613001361796.

Shape of allied health: an environmental scan of 27 allied health professions in Victoria.

Objective In 2015, the Victorian Department of Health and Human Services commissioned the Victorian Allied Health Workforce Research Program to provide data on allied health professions in the Victorian public, private and not-for-profit sectors. Herein we present a snapshot of the demographic profiles and distribution of these professions in Victoria and discuss the workforce implications. Methods The program commenced with an environmental scan of 27 allied health professions in Victoria. This substantial scoping exercise identified existing data, resources and contexts for each profession to guide future data collection and research. Each environmental scan reviewed existing data relating to the 27 professions, augmented by an online questionnaire sent to the professional bodies representing each discipline. Results Workforce data were patchy but, based on the evidence available, the allied health professions in Victoria vary greatly in size (ranging from just 17 child life therapists to 6288 psychologists), are predominantly female (83% of professions are more than 50% female) and half the professions report that 30% of their workforce is aged under 30 years. New training programs have increased workforce inflows to many professions, but there is little understanding of attrition rates. Professions reported a lack of senior positions in the public sector and a concomitant lack of senior specialised staff available to support more junior staff. Increasing numbers of allied health graduates are being employed directly in private practice because of a lack of growth in new positions in the public sector and changing funding models. Smaller professions reported that their members are more likely to be professionally isolated within an allied health team or larger organisations. Uneven rural-urban workforce distribution was evident across most professions. Conclusions Workforce planning for allied health is extremely complex because of the lack of data, fragmented funding and regulatory frameworks and diverse employment contexts. What is known about this topic? There is a lack of good-quality workforce data on the allied health professions generally. The allied health workforce is highly feminised and unevenly distributed geographically, but there is little analysis of these issues across professions. What does this paper add? The juxtaposition of the health workforce demographics and distribution of 27 allied health professions in Victoria illustrates some clear trends and identifies several common themes across professions. What are the implications for practitioners? There are opportunities for the allied health professions to collectively address several of the common issues to achieve economies of scale, given the large number of professions and small size of many.

Allied health: untapped potential in the Australian health system.

Although comprising around 20 per cent ofAustralia's health care workforce, allied health and its contribution to improving health outcomes remains poorly understood and largely invisible in the Australian health policy and reform environment. There is strong evidence demonstrating the benefits of allied health in improving patient outcomes, minimising risk and harm from illness and improving health system efficiency and capacity to meet increased demand cost effectively. Despite this, the existing health model, funding and culture prevent us from effectively accessing these benefits at a system level. The untapped potential of allied health represents a major underutilised resource to address many of the challenges facing Australia's health system today. A transformational change in the Australian health system in how, where and by whom care is provided is necessary. Australia's health model and culture needs to shift, to genuinely involve the consumer and make fill use of all three pillars of the patient care workforce.

Building allied health workforce capacity: a strategic approach to workforce innovation.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to identify areas where allied health assistants (AHAs) are not working to their full scope of practice in order to improve the effectiveness of the allied health workforce. METHODS: Qualitative data collected via focus groups identified suitable AHA tasks and a quantitative survey with allied health professionals (AHPs) measured the magnitude of work the current AHP workforce spends undertaking these tasks. RESULTS: Quantification survey results indicate that Victoria's AHP workforce spends up to 17% of time undertaking tasks that could be delegated to an AHA who has relevant training and adequate supervision. Over half this time is spent on clinical tasks. CONCLUSIONS: The skills of AHAs are not being optimally utilised. Significant opportunity exists to reform the current allied health workforce. Such reform should result in increased capacity of the workforce to meet future demands.

Study protocol for two randomized controlled trials examining the effectiveness and safety of current weekend allied health services and a new stakeholder-driven model for acute medical/surgical patients versus no weekend allied health services.

BACKGROUND: Disinvestment from inefficient or ineffective health services is a growing priority for health care systems. Provision of allied health services over the weekend is now commonplace despite a relative paucity of evidence supporting their provision. The relatively high cost of providing this service combined with the paucity of evidence supporting its provision makes this a potential candidate for disinvestment so that resources consumed can be used in other areas. This study aims to determine the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of the current model of weekend allied health service and a new stakeholder-driven model of weekend allied health service delivery on acute medical and surgical wards compared to having no weekend allied health service. METHODS/DESIGN: Two stepped wedge, cluster randomised trials of weekend allied health services will be conducted in six acute medical/surgical wards across two public metropolitan hospitals in Melbourne (Australia). Wards have been chosen to participate by management teams at each hospital. The allied health services to be investigated will include physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy, dietetics, social work and allied health assistants. At baseline, all wards will be receiving weekend allied health services. Study 1 intervention will be the sequential disinvestment (roll-in) of the current weekend allied health service model from each participating ward in monthly intervals and study 2 will be the roll-out of a new stakeholder-driven model of weekend allied health service delivery. The order in which weekend allied health services will be rolled in and out amongst participating wards will be determined randomly. This trial will be conducted in each of the two participating hospitals at a different time interval. Primary outcomes will be length of stay, rate of unplanned hospital readmission within 28 days and rate of adverse events. Secondary outcomes will be number of complaints and compliments, staff absenteeism, and patient discharge destination, satisfaction, and functional independence at discharge. DISCUSSION: This is the world's first application of the recently described non-inferiority (roll-in) stepped wedge trial design, and the largest investigation of the effectiveness of weekend allied health services on acute medical surgical wards to date. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry. REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12613001231730 (first study) and ACTRN12613001361796 (second study). Was this trial prospectively registered?: Yes. Date registered: 8 November 2013 (first study), 12 December 2013 (second study). Anticipated completion: June 2015. Protocol version: 1. Role of trial sponsor: KP and DL are directly employed by one of the trial sponsors, their roles were: KP assisted with overall development of research design and assisted with overall project management; DL contributed to project management, administration and communications strategy.